The present invention relates generally to golf club putters, and more particularly, is directed to a golf club putter which prevents forward breaking of the wrists during a putting stroke, while providing an accurate line of sight.
During a putting stroke, breaking of the wrists in the forward direction, also known as the YIPS, is undesirable. In other words, the YIPS is the forward breaking of the wrists so that the club head moves ahead of the hands at the time of hitting the ball or immediately thereafter. If the wrists break in this manner during the putting stroke, much of the putting control is lost.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,209,474 to Voyer discloses a golf club putter that has an object of avoiding the YIPS. With this putter, the length of the shaft is increased by about one foot to 49 inches so that the medial stabilization portion of the shaft is received in the crook of the golfer's leading arm and the upper stabilization portion of the shaft contacts the outer surface of the upper portion of the leading arm. As a result, movement of the putter is restrained relative to the golfer's arms and wrists during putting so as to avoid the YIPS. In other words, by wedging the shaft in the crook of the leading arm and against the outer surface of the upper portion of the leading arm, there is a restriction in breaking of the wrists.
Because of this arrangement, the shaft of the putter is angled to the front by an angle Z which is between 2 degrees and 8 degrees with respect to the vertical, and which is preferably 5 degrees, that is, in order for the shaft to be received in the crook of the leading arm. Further, the shaft is angled to the side by an angle Y with respect to the vertical of at least 10 degrees, as with conventional putters.
However, this putter has various disadvantages.
First, there are various types of putting styles. For example, although forward breaking of the wrists, known as the YIPS, is undesirable, rearward breaking of the wrists is permissible. Thus, in one type of putting stroke, there is a rearward breaking of the wrists which results in a hand to head lag where the club head lags behind while the hands are moving forward. This type of putting stroke is therefore performed as a pulling putting stroke, in which the sensation is similar to that of dragging a spoon under water while the hand holding the spoon is above the water. The lag therefore has stored up power. However, this type of putting style cannot be used with the putter of Voyer since the shaft would move away from the leading arm, and would therefore not be situated in the crook thereof.
Another type of putting stroke provides a forward press where the putter head is pressed forward prior to starting the backswing of the putter, which provides a smooth transition in the stroke. This cannot be performed with the putter of Voyer since the upper stabilization portion of the shaft contacts the outer surface of the upper portion of the leading arm, thereby restricting such movement.
Second, there are various types of putting grips, such as the strong reverse overlap, weak overlap, split hand, palms opposed ten finger, double reverse overlap and forefinger down the shaft. Because of the requirement that the shaft be positioned in the crook of the leading arm, the putter of Voyer is limited to only certain grips.
Third, Voyer indicates that an object is to provide a golf putter which restrains bending of the wrists and leading arm during putting. This is because of the relationship of the shaft to the leading arm. However, because of this arrangement, the club head of Voyer will not move more than a few inches past the ball, after contacting the ball. This is because the upper part of the shaft against the outer portion of the upper arm restricts movement of the putter head past the hands. As a result, the golfer cannot take a natural stroke, and further cannot release the lagging arm at such time. With the putter of Voyer, to complete the stroke as with a natural swing, it is necessary for the golfer to lift his body up, thereby effecting an unnatural movement.
Fourth, the putter of Voyer is only operative if the angle of the putter is within the stated range. If the angle is increased, the medial stabilization portion of the shaft will not be received in the crook of the leading arm and the upper stabilization portion of the shaft will not contact the outer portion of the upper arm.
Fifth, it is impossible to connect the lower end of the shaft directly to the hosel in Voyer. This is because the putter head would have to be greater in length than the width thereof, which is not permitted by USGA Rules. For this reason, the lower end of the shaft is connected at a position spaced above the putter head.
Sixth, with the putter of Voyer, the left shoulder is raised, as shown in the figures of Voyer. This, however, does not result in a true pendulum stroke. Specifically, during the stroke, the putter head does not move along a straight line as viewed from above, but rather moves along an arcuate line. As a result, a true pendulum swing is not achieved. This is because Voyer is concerned with restraining movement of the stroke. Accordingly, the golfer must conform to the putter, rather than the putter conforming to the golfer's stroke. Further, when the left shoulder is raised, the eyes are not level so that proper alignment of the ball is not achieved.
Seventh, because the putter of Voyer has an increased length, which is necessary for it to be operative for its intended purpose, the weight of the putter will increase dramatically, which is undesirable. It has been suggested by experts that a putter should not weigh more than 20 ounces.
Another putter has been suggested in U.S. Pat. No. 5,344,141 to Smith in which the length of the shaft is that of a conventional putter and the forward inclination angle is preferably between about 0 degrees and 10 degrees, and most preferably about 1 degree. Because Smith teaches that 1 degree is the most desirable angle, there would be no YIPs prevention.
Further, with the Smith putter, the head is constructed in a barrel or cylindrical shape. As a result, substantially the entire bottom of the putter head is in contact with the ground surface at the beginning of the putting stroke, prior to taking the putter back. As a result, there will not be a smooth transition from the front of the club face to the back, so that there will be much friction and/or pressure from the ground surface, causing problems during the putting stroke. As a result, the bottom surface of the Smith putter head will skid when the ball is hit. Also, at the end of the stroke, the back portion of the cylindrical head will contact the ground. In addition, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to forward press the putter.
Finally, with the Smith putter, the shaft is attached either behind the barrel or in front of the center of gravity thereof. There is no teaching of attaching the shaft to a rear upper surface of the putter, at a position where the lower or bottom surface of the putter head does not contact the ground. Thus, when a person applies a downward pressure on the shaft of the Smith putter, the rear portion of the cylindrical putter head is in contact with the ground surface, causing problems with the putting stroke. In order to apply pressure only to the front portion of the putter head, Smith provides that the shaft is attached to the putter head in front of the center of gravity thereof.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,703,199 to McClure discloses a shaft angled forwardly with respect to the plane of the club face and connected toward the front of the putting head. The upper end of the shaft is in front of the hitting face by an amount equal to the radius of a golf ball, although the exact angle is not given.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,308,068 to Strand discloses a golf putter in which the shaft is angled forwardly by 10 degrees. However, the shaft is an extended shaft that rests on the forearm of the golfer while stroking and hitting the ball. Thus, this is similar to Voyer and has the same problems.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,224,702 to Turner discloses an offset hosel golf club in which the shaft is angled in the range of 0 degrees to 15 degrees. However, this is a wood, and the angulation is used to prevent slicing and hooking of the golf ball.
British Patent No. 2,081,590 to Thompson discloses a putter in which the shaft is angled forwardly about an angle A in the range of 15 degrees to 40 degrees, and preferably in the range of 18 degrees to 25 degrees. However, because this angulation is very large, it could not function to prevent the YIPs.
It is noted that, with the Thompson putter, the bottom surface of the putter head is angled upwardly at the rear thereof. See, also U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,754,976 to Pelz 5,072,941 to Klein.
In conventional putters where the shaft is not angled forwardly at all, the shaft is connected to the putter head at an angle of 90 degrees. As a result, there is a desired line of sight, and the putting stroke tends to be along a straight line from rear to front along such desired line of sight. However, it has been determined by the applicant herein that, when the shaft is angled forwardly of the putter head, it appears to the golfer that the putter head is angled inwardly to the left (for a right-handed golfer) and to the right (for a left-handed golfer) from the line of the desired putting stroke. As a result, there is a tendency for the golfer to compensate and thereby hit the ball to the right of the desired putting line for a right-handed golfer and to the left of the desired putting line for a left-handed golfer.
This problem is accentuated when the upper surface of the putting head slopes down to the rear to impart an aerodynamic appearance to the putter, in contrast to the case where the upper surface of the putter head has a surface which is horizontal, that is, parallel to the ground surface when the putter head addresses the ball. In such case, the right-handed golfer tends to hit the ball even further to the right of the desired putting line.
Other putters of varying configurations are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,462,155 to Pelz; 3,758,115 to Hoglund; 4,138,117 to Dalton; 4,141,556 to Paulin; 4,240,636 to Swenson; 4,522,405 to Clawges; 4,741,535 to Leonhardt; and 4,919,428 to Perkins.